When acquaintances learned of my endeavor to pen a book about Keir Starmer, the typical inquiries ensued: does he hold firm beliefs? What are his characteristics? Isn’t he, some queried with a hint of disapproval, somewhat uninteresting? The simplest question to address was the last one, as he is far from mundane. Starmer is delightful company, infused with a captivating sense of humor, and possesses the rare ability to truly listen—a trait often absent in many politicians.
It is customary for advisors (or former advisors like myself) to lament about how they wish the broader public could perceive a candidate as they do. However, the disparity between Starmer’s reality and public perception is more pronounced than most, and it cannot solely be attributed to his occasional reticence in front of cameras or the derision he faces online—largely from the left—mocking his accent and moniker “Keith.”
The more plausible rationale is that Starmer is intricate, much like most individuals, brimming with contradictions. He stands as the most working-class leader the party has seen in a generation, yet he is also the first in its annals to bear the title “Sir” before assuming his current role. While he is a reserved and prudent individual, he has willingly thrust himself into the glaring spotlight of public scrutiny, undertaking substantial political gambles, including one that led to the political demise of his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn. While he tends to contemplate decisions thoroughly and occasionally alters his stance, he has displayed breathtaking ruthlessness in outmaneuvering more refined or popular adversaries within the Tory party and his own ranks.
None of this is mundane; it is simply remarkably intricate. Defining him is a formidable task, as part of him instinctively resists any attempts to pigeonhole him. He did not always relish the idea of me crafting a biography about him. Throughout numerous conversations over the past couple of years, I had to gently coax him into discussing topics that middle-aged Englishmen often find uncomfortable: a challenging relationship with his father, a sense of detachment from his brother and sisters left behind as he pursued a career in London, and the relentless ambition that one of his ex-partners recalls as characterized by “little reflection and unwavering determination… which can create challenges for those around him because few possess such resilience.”
For the majority of Starmer’s life, he did not need to dwell too deeply on these aspects. His identity was predominantly shaped by the three decades spent as a successful human rights barrister and later as the director of public prosecutions. He did not win cases by invoking his upbringing in a “pebbledash semi-detached house,” and the oft-repeated phrase “My dad was a toolmaker and my mum was a nurse” did not pass his lips until he was well into his fifties.
At one point, I contemplated titling my biography of him “The Unpolitician” because he defies the conventional mold of political leaders. His backstory is intricate and flawed, devoid of a grand vision encapsulated in a three-word slogan or the charismatic aura that long shielded Boris Johnson. Even if “unpolitician” were a recognized term, it would still fall short of encapsulating Starmer, who, despite his reservations about the profession, has adeptly honed his political acumen.
He is fallible and occasionally makes unforced errors, as evidenced in the past year or his recent oversight in initially supporting Labour’s candidate Azhar Ali despite egregious antisemitic remarks. However, the crux of the matter lies in how he eventually rectified the situation, a move unprecedented in recent memory, during a by-election he anticipated winning.
He has steered Labour from a significant deficit to a 20-point lead. Those who dismiss this feat as mere luck underestimate him, akin to the many vanquished opponents before. While Johnson’s wounds often seemed self-inflicted, it was frequently Starmer’s precise and legalistic approach that inflicted the initial blow. When Liz Truss sowed fear among the populace and markets, Starmer provided reassurance where Labour had previously offered an alternative brand of apprehension. As Rishi Sunak appeared to encroach on the territory of centrist competence and decency, the Labour leader stood firm, while Sunak veered towards the extreme fringes of the Conservative party.
Indeed, a testament to his success in reshaping the Labour party and its electoral prospects is the lingering query surrounding whether mere victory suffices. Criticism abounds within the party, with some aggrieved by his departure from the principles he championed in the 2020 leadership election. Others lament recent retreats from earlier commitments to invest in green initiatives. Certain factions insinuate that his efforts to combat antisemitism serve as a guise to purge the left, accusing him of succumbing to right-wing influences.
A key challenge stems from Starmer’s steadfast refusal to align himself along an ideological spectrum or tether himself too tightly to specific policies. Chris Ward, a close confidant who was part of his [ppp0] team and maintains proximity to him, remarked, “One of Keir’s greatest strengths lies in his detachment from any particular faction within the Labour party. Unlike most previous Labour leaders, he has not been entrenched in the party throughout his life; it does not define him entirely, even now. This flexibility allowed him to secure leadership from the soft left and subsequently lead from the center-right. His primary focus remains on winning elections and effecting change, adapting his approach as necessary to navigate different party factions.” Yet, Ward harbors concerns about the trajectory. He apprehensively contemplates the prospect of Starmer becoming ensnared by a singular faction or isolated during challenging times. The looming question is whether he can evade such entrapment in Downing Street and finally realize his political aspirations.
Contrary to the prevailing casual assertion that he lacks a defined stance, Starmer’s unveiled policies from the previous year, which remain underreported, are pivotal in deciphering his agenda. Each policy is underpinned by everyday values centered on camaraderie, family, and football—a sport that resonates deeply with him and often serves as his preferred metaphor. His ardor for the game is palpable, especially when he articulates his yearning to prove his mettle in governance, likening it to “letting actions speak louder than words on the field.” His passion for Arsenal exudes a sense of liberation as he immerses himself in the collective spirit of the crowd, particularly during moments of triumph when a late goal sparks jubilation and unity.
These values manifest in various facets of his life. Recalling his school years, he recounts a distressing incident where a friend was disowned by his family for being gay, a memory that fueled his sense of injustice. Subsequently, when his friend faced a violent assault for his sexual orientation, Starmer intervened and faced physical retribution, illustrating his unwavering commitment to solidarity and equality.
Such values are equally evident in his personal life. Reflecting on attending his niece Jess’s same-sex wedding in 2022, he juxtaposed the celebratory occasion with a disturbing incident where Jess suffered a brutal attack for her sexual orientation, underscoring the ongoing societal challenges. His visceral reaction to the injustice faced by his niece, compounded by the failure to secure justice, unveils a rare display of public anger. However, his impassioned advocacy for women and girls, extending beyond perfunctory political rhetoric, resonates deeply with those who have encountered his genuine empathy.
Privately, he exhibits a profound empathy for ordinary individuals, empathizing with their joys and sorrows, which serve as a conduit to a world often overlooked by politics. Starmer’s affection for the diverse tapestry of people and places across the nation is unmistakable. An anecdote from a holiday in the Lake District underscores his unassuming nature and affinity for anonymity within the intricate fabric of British society, where nuanced dialogue and ambiguity hold promise for progress and consensus-building.
While it would be unreasonable to posit that he is the sole political leader with experiences outside the political sphere, what sets Starmer apart is his deliberate effort to maintain boundaries between his personal life and public role. For instance, his discreet visits to his ailing brother in a Leeds hospital during 2022 remained undisclosed. Even when addressing a gathering of healthcare professionals—an ideal platform for a Labour leader—he prioritized expressing gratitude over media attention, exemplifying his commitment to genuine gestures of appreciation.
In essence, defining the essence of the Labour leader proves to be a multifaceted task, for there exists an extraordinary blend of complexity and normalcy within him. His advocacy for an “ordinary hope,” as articulated in a speech, serves as a beacon of optimism amidst the prevailing narratives.