What Will Keir Starmer Do Next?

When Josh Simons resigned as the MP for Makefield on the 14th of May this year, he did two things. First, he triggered a by-election for his seat and gave Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham a path back to Parliament, where he would make a charge on the office of Prime Minister on the basis that he was among the only well-liked politicians in the UK.

Second, the Simons resignation started a countdown on Sir Keir Starmer's time as Prime Minister, because if Andy Burnham could make it to Parliament, then the embattled Starmer would have to be forced out, both as Labour Party leader and as Prime Minister of the UK.

You'll notice that we're saying if and not when, because it wasn't a guarantee that Burnham would win. While Burnham was extremely popular for a British politician because of his time as the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Reform UK were on a tear, winning seats even in areas that had traditionally been Labour strongholds.

Burnham would go on to win the election, and by a comfortable margin. a week later, Starmer would resign, paving the way for Burnham to move into No. 10 Downing Street.

Keir Starmer's countdown had run out, but unbeknownst to almost everyone except Starmer and perhaps a few close associates, there was a second countdown timer. One that was counting down how much time Starmer would remain in Parliament, even as the MP for Holborn and St Pancras.

That's a seat he's had for 11 years, and one that he was expected to hold until the next general election, June 2029.

On the 1st of September, just hours before Burnham made his debut in the House of Commons, Starmer announced that he was going to resign from Parliament. But Starmer's departure has raised a whole lot of questions, including perhaps the most important, what will Starmer do next? Going global. a lot of former prime ministers.

Five others in the past 10 years, and now Starmer. That's good news for Keir, in a way. It means he has a lot of people he can ask for advice on what to do next after holding and losing the highest office in the land.

David Cameron and Liz Truss did pretty well for themselves on the speaking circuits, earning significant sums for speeches they've delivered. Theresa May worked on several causes that she's championed throughout her career, particularly fighting modern slavery and human trafficking.

And she's also become a senior fellow at Yale's Jackson School of Global Affairs.

Boris Johnson, meanwhile, went onto the internet to profess his love of AI and ChatGPT. love ChatGPT. I love it. a more serious note, though, Johnson has written book, become a columnist for the Daily Mail, and he occasionally hits the speaking circuit, too. Starmer seems intent on following the Theresa May route, at least partially.

He the Camden New Journal that he was going to continue his work on ending violence against women and girls, something he's been passionate about since before he became an MP, and that he continued to champion even as Prime Minister.

As commendable as that is, especially at a time when much of the world seems keen on moving backwards, this is only part of what Starmer plans to spend his time working on. He told the outlet that he would also be working on international affairs. to some observers, that confirms Starmer's apparent interest in becoming the Secretary General of NATO.

Speculation about Starmer wanting the NATO job is not new. On 28th of June, six days after Starmer had announced his resignation, Tom Baldwin, a former senior labor advisor and the author of The Authorized.

Starmer biography, wrote in The Observer that Starmer was interested in the NATO Secretary General role once it fell vacant in 2028 at the end of Mark Rutger's term.

This report would have been easy to ignore as mere Westminster gossip if it came from anyone else, but given how close Baldwin is to both the Labour Party and to Starmer personally, took notice. they took even more notice during the recent NATO summit in Ankara after a reporter asked Starmer directly whether he wanted the job.

Instead of ruling it out, he said that he was focusing all his attention on the job he had at the moment, being the lame duck Prime Minister. was a great political answer, but it's also as close to an admission as we're going to get from a politician of Starmer's calibre. week later, Baldwin was back at it, telling Times Radio that Starmer would indeed be

Interested in the Secretary General position. of this taken together indicates that at the very least, Starmer has thought about the NATO job. that raises an obvious question. would he even get in the first place?

First, the position does need to fall vacant, and there's no guarantee that it will once Reuters' term comes to an end in 2028. alliance can choose to extend his time in office if they believe he's done a good enough job. wouldn't be the first time that NATO has done this.

The alliance extended the term of the previous Secretary General, Jen Stoltenberg, four times, and he ultimately served for a decade in the position. that seat does fall vacant, there's no formal process or even vote to choose who fills it.

In fact, there are few requirements beyond the candidate being a senior political figure from a European NATO member state.

That's a criteria Starmer easily meets as the former prime minister. actual selection happens through informal diplomatic negotiations among member states, countries putting forward their candidates for consideration. decision can only be reached once all 32 members agree. this sounds simple enough, at least on paper.

But in order for someone to get approval of all 32 countries, they need to be very well versed in the kind of backroom deals that would make Emperor Palpatine proud.

Ruter, for example. he was trying to secure the job in 2024, Hungary kept vetoing his candidacy until Ruter gave Budapest a written guarantee that it would not be forced to take part in the military alliance's plans to provide support to Ukraine. would be forgiven for thinking that such political deal-making would come naturally to Starmer, given that he

Rose to the highest political office in the UK. according to Tom Baldwin, again the guy who wrote Starmer's official biography, this has never been Starmer's strength. supplement his lackluster deal-making skills, Starmer will need the full support of the British government.

If Burnham is still prime minister, and there's a real chance that he might not be, given the UK's recent political history, then he might have a shot.

Starmer announced his resignation, Burnham publicly praised his lifetime of public service, specifically highlighting Starmer's tireless efforts in supporting Ukraine as something worth celebrating.

However, there's a difference between praising your predecessor when they announced their retirement and committing the full resources of the state to helping them achieve their next career goal. everything aligns perfectly, if Rutter isn't offered an extension, if the British government gives him its full backing, and if he can get all 32 member states to

Agree, Starmer can get the NATO job. question then becomes, is he the right person for the job? the man of the moment.

Now, to figure out whether Starmer is right for the role, we need to talk about what NATO's Secretary General actually does.

According to NATO's own description of the role, the Secretary General has three official functions. First, they chair the North Atlantic Council, the Alliance's principal political decision-making body. Second, they chair other senior decision-making committees, such as the Nuclear Planning Group and the NATO-Ukraine Council.

Finally, the Secretary General is the Alliance's principal spokesperson, as well as the head NATO's international staff, responsible for making staff appointments and overseeing its work. Again, that's something that a former Prime Minister can do in his sleep. But that's just the tip of a titanic-sized iceberg.

In practice, the Secretary General is a full-time diplomat who spends their time shuttling between NATO capitals, building support for whatever the Alliance needs most at that moment.

For the better part of four years, that's meant ensuring that Ukraine has enough weapons and supplies to keep fighting against Russia, while simultaneously trying to hold the entire Alliance together. This happens to be something Starmer was genuinely good at as Prime Minister.

Rachel Elihus, the Director General of the Royal United Services Institute and a former senior NATO official, praised Starmer's approach to the Ukraine war. She had specific compliments for his ability to rally a European coalition of the willing and for ensuring continued military assistance to Ukraine.

Even Mark Reuter has praised Keir Starmer's leadership on Ukraine, specifically highlighting the UK's role alongside Germany to lead the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, an alliance of 57 countries that support Kyiv by sending weapons and military equipment.

Those skills are about to become even more important, because on Thursday, the 3rd of September, Trump announced that he'd start asking European governments to pay the U.S. back for military aid sent to Ukraine by the Biden administration. That's hundreds of billions of dollars by Trump's own account.

This demand is coming at a time when Trump is mad that NATO and European nations refused to join America's war with Iran, which has now dragged on for six months. that brings us to perhaps the most difficult job that today's NATO Secretaries General will have: managing Donald Trump.

Since coming back into office, President Trump has pursued a foreign policy that can be charitably called "belligerent," especially towards countries that were at one point America's closest allies.

Take Canada, for example, a country that does hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of trade with the U.S. each year, which also sent more than 40,000 troops to support Washington during the war in Afghanistan.

Ottawa has been locked in a trade war with the U.S. over the past few weeks, because, among other things, Washington tried to dictate the countries Ottawa could make trade deals with.

Beyond trade, President Trump has openly called for the annexation of Canada to make it the 51st state, going so far as calling Prime Minister Mark Carney a "governor," the same title as the top executive in each American state capital. And there's Greenland.

Trump has been trying to take over the island since his first term in office, insisting that it's vital for America's national security.

Trump was so insistent about taking Greenland that he even refused to rule out using military force to do it, which would have been a historic escalation between NATO allies after a while so far war of words if trump had actually followed through this would have been the first time that nato forces were on opposite sides of a conflict all of this plus the

Heavy sanctions that washington imposed on europe in 2025 and the sheer contempt with which trump administration officials treat their european counterparts have really dented america's image among its nato allies now this might be navigable if it was just limited to trade disputes however given the outsized role that the us plays in keeping the other nato

Countries safe it quickly became evidence that nato would need to find a way to make him happy so far the job's fallen to mark router whose methods for managing trump are not subtle routers adopted trump's distinct way of speaking describing the increased defense spending using words like staggering and huge win which seem more at home on a truth social post

Than coming from nato's top official he's taken to effusively praising trump at any chance he gets including at the ankara nato summit where he thanked the american president for pushing nato members to spend an extra 1.2 trillion dollars on defense over his two terms that by the way is a figure that ruta has taken to calling the trump trillion and it seems

To have worked because trump has been equally enthusiastic with his praise for ruta describing him as a great leader and the alliance's biggest asset this will be one of the biggest challenges for keir starmer because his relationship with trump especially during starmer's final months in office can best be described as rocky the two world leaders had a very

Public falling out over starmer's decision to block the us from using british military bases specifically on the indian island ocean of diego garcia for strikes against iran during operation epic fury starmer would eventually reverse that decision allowing washington to use the bases for defensive strikes after trump publicly called him out telling reporters

In the oval office that starmer was quote no winston churchill starmer for his part told the press that he was fed up with watching british energy bills swing up and down because of trump's actions rachel reeves starmer's chancellor of the exchequer the equivalent of america's treasury secretary went even further saying that the war had been a mistake that

Had failed to make the world safer this statement while technically true is the kind of thing that makes trump a little bit mad in fact so mad that he might refuse to support starmer's candidacy if starmer wants to replace router in 2028 then he needs to find a way to mend fences with president trump that might happen sooner than most people expect because

Trump told starmer that he wanted to keep in touch after the latter's resignation as prime minister while starmer's relationship with trump is a major stumbling block it's not the only one it's not even the one that's most likely to sink his chances that honor goes to money starmer came into office with big promises about improving defense spending going as

Far as commissioning a strategic defense review or sdr that was meant to fully assess the uk's military capabilities and give recommendations on how they could be improved the sdr was meant to be followed by the defense investment plan a 10-year strategy meant to fund and equip everything that the review had highlighted the plans were ambitious but the

Delivery wasn't chronic delays and funding shortfalls led to the resignation of john healy as the nation's defense secretary in a scathing letter healy criticized starmer's unwillingness to commit enough resources to defense highlighting the growing resources required amid the iran war threats from russia and the escalation in the ukraine war starmer would

Eventually bow to the pressure committing an extra 15 billion pounds to defense this was around half of what the mod had asked for meaning that everybody was ultimately disappointed that extra money meant that the uk would be spending 2.7 of gdp on defense by 2029 but that was still a far cry from nato's target of three and a half percent a target starmer

Himself had signed up to and all of this raises an obvious issue for starmer how can he convince 31 other nations to spend more on defense even though he failed to so when he had the chance this more than anything else is likely to sink his candidacy the world is becoming more dangerous and russia is becoming a lot more brazen in pushing nato's boundaries in

November last year a russian spy ship made its way through british waters in what observers believed was an attempt at mapping british undersea cables for future attack the ship even used lasers to disrupt air force pilots who were tracking it and just a few weeks ago an explosive drone was found on the runway at leipzig hale airport near a ukrainian cargo

Aircraft that according to some reports was carrying ammunition for kiev's war efforts that's in addition to the dozens and dozens of known or suspected sabotage attacks across europe in the last few years escalating sharply in last several months all of these attacks are part of a russian strategy of hybrid warfare to see just how far moscow could push

Nato's boundaries and they might be the reason that starmer never becomes nato secretary general the fact that britain has faced such a substantial russian threat and starmer still failed to rise to the occasion will badly damage his credibility especially with the countries that are most at risk of a russian attack and take the idea of a future war most

Seriously through his actions starmer has shown that he just isn't their guy of course long shot candidates have succeeded before there's reason to believe that starmer still has a chance especially with his track record of support for ukraine but starmer even though he's probably loathed to believe it is a long shot candidate to lead an alliance that needs

Someone with an iron-fisted commitment to collective defense starmer in his time as premier just did not show that thank you for watching