Tim Ross is POLITICO’s chief political correspondent for Europe and the U.K. His most recent book, “Landslide: The Inside Story of the 2024 Election,” was published in November.
A year after his historic election win in 1997, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair remarked that the first thing government officials did when he got the job was take away his passport.
“Seriously! Then they spend the rest of the time trying to take you traveling around the world,” he said.
And since becoming British prime minister last July, Keir Starmer has found himself in a very similar situation. Whisked up in the whirl of international diplomacy, he’s been juggling the U.K.’s commitments to Ukraine, seeking to reset relations with the EU and preparing for the return of U.S. President Donald Trump.
In fact, Starmer has spent more time on foreign trips than any of his immediate predecessors in their first six months in office, notching up 31 days in overseas travel. That tally has increased since the start of the new year, and Starmer is now set to join EU leaders for dinner in Brussels on Monday. Soon enough, Downing Street officials hope, he’ll also be on a plane to meet Trump in Washington.
Starmer’s clearly committed to the diplomatic part of the role, and with so many international threats weighing on Britain’s economy, it’s hard to argue he’s wrong. But the air miles come with a price tag of their own.
Politically, the prime minister risks being seen as an absentee, and has already been warned he’ll be accused of “fleeing” the country in the face of poor polling results. It’s an easy hit for opponents who want to portray him as out of touch, and it’s one that even the moribund Conservatives won’t miss.
Then there’s the opportunity cost. Travel takes up vast amounts of a leader’s limited time, and it’s tiring too.
There’s also the time consumed hosting world leaders at home in the U.K., who come to see Starmer for lunch in No.10 or — in the case of France’s Emmanuel Macron earlier this month — dinner at the prime minister’s official country retreat of Chequers.
But it’s not as if he doesn’t have other work to do.
Starmer was elected with a landslide in July on a promise to rebuild Britain after 14 years under the Conservatives. Years that saw the upheaval of Brexit, two referendums, five prime ministers, a pandemic, a war in Ukraine, rocketing immigration, a National Health Service on its knees, a self-inflicted market meltdown and rampant inflation.
Upon entering Downing Street, however, the Labour team were surprised at just how much of the prime minister’s time was eaten up by diplomatic duties. Of course, this is partly because Starmer’s former chief of staff Sue Gray failed to prepare the new government for the realities of power. “There was no plan,” one government aide said.
But since Morgan McSweeney, the mastermind behind the party’s election victory, replaced Gray in October, he has instilled a missing sense of discipline at No. 10, shaping a clear strategic direction. With Starmer so focused on the multiplying foreign crises, McSweeney has decided to mostly stay in London. He rarely travels with the prime minister — though that’s also because the government has a habit of veering off-course when he’s out of the country.
Downing Street’s strategy for managing these competing pressures has also involved bolstering the prime minister’s team with old hands who know what they’re doing — especially on foreign affairs. For example, when McSweeney asked previous post-holders for their advice upon taking the job, he was so impressed with Blair’s right-hand man Jonathan Powell, he appointed him national security adviser.
Starmer also picked Peter Mandelson, the godfather of the Blair-era Labour Party’s electoral success, to be the next British ambassador to the U.S.
However, with such names from the Blair years back in Downing Street, one question stands out: Will the former prime minister himself get a recall? Surprisingly, the answer might not be “never.”
While Starmer feels the pull of his international responsibilities, at some point ahead of the next election, McSweeney will want his boss back on the campaign trail rather than strolling the red-carpeted tarmac of foreign airports.
One solution would be to hand over more of the diplomacy to the foreign secretary, or even add a “first secretary of state” position to the cabinet to lighten the load. There’s recent precedent for this: Ahead of the 2024 election, then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak brought back former Prime Minister David Cameron to take up the diplomatic burden, so that he could focus on campaigning.
Some in Starmer’s government regard this decision as a smart move on Sunak’s part, especially in an election year. (Some were even lobbying for Cameron to be the new ambassador to the U.S.) So, could they conceivably do the same with Blair when the time comes?
There are several reasons why not: For one, there’s a risk the still vigorous 71-year-old ex-leader could outshine the incumbent. Second, the two men don’t necessarily agree on all policy points.
Despite the wealth of Blair-era wisdom in Starmer’s team, McSweeney doesn’t regard the mission as a Blairite project. (And it’s safe to say that a niggling envy also persists, after Starmer didn’t quite beat Blair’s record-breaking 1997 majority in last year’s election).
Moreover, Blair remains a highly divisive figure, especially for his role in enabling former U.S. President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003. Giving him a foreign policy brief would be a red rag to many on Labour’s left and beyond.
However, Cameron’s legacy on foreign affairs — ushering in Brexit, most glaringly — was also painfully divisive. In the end, what made the difference for Sunak was the Tories’ dire state with an election on the horizon. He needed to be able to focus on domestic issues to avoid the complete wipeout of his party, which might have otherwise followed.
Starmer’s polling numbers and personal favorability ratings are already bad, with the far-right Reform UK now within touching distance of Labour in voting intention surveys. Of course, polling can be unreliable, and there’s a long way to go before the next election. Starmer himself recently indicated to POLITICO that he won’t call the vote before he has to in 2029.
Labour’s prospects would need to reach a true crisis point before Blair is ever invited back. But as the election draws closer, it would be foolish to think Starmer’s team would never be desperate enough to ask Labour’s most successful leader to hand over his passport one last time.
The post Why Starmer might need to bring back Blair appeared first on Politico.
