If domestic affairs were progressing smoothly, few would question the prime minister's international engagements, observes commentator John Rentoul. The recent China trip by Keir Starmer has instead highlighted deeper concerns about his leadership at home.
A Mission of Mixed Messages
Keir Starmer traveled thousands of miles to Beijing with multiple objectives, yet struggled to present a coherent narrative. The prime minister secured the removal of sanctions against eight British parliamentarians, including former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith, who had been banned from China for protesting the treatment of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang.
The unbanning brought little celebration from the affected MPs, who issued a joint statement reaffirming their "ongoing solidarity with the Uyghur people." Starmer nevertheless claimed diplomatic credit, stating the development "couldn't have happened if we weren't here, having the leader-to-leader exchange."
Focusing on Domestic Concerns Abroad
Throughout the visit, Starmer repeatedly attempted to redirect attention to Britain's cost of living crisis. He told the BBC that "the single most important issue for your viewers back at home is the cost of living," suggesting his international diplomacy ultimately served domestic economic interests.
Even trade discussions about boosting British exports and creating jobs seemed secondary to this messaging. Greg Jackson, CEO of Octopus Energy and part of the business delegation, highlighted opportunities in Chinese renewable technology, noting "a huge opportunity for Britain to succeed as we build the solutions that use these products to cut the cost of electricity."
The Awkward Realities of Engagement
This emphasis on green energy cooperation raised uncomfortable questions about whether replacing dependence on foreign fossil fuels might simply create new dependencies on foreign solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries.
Beyond policy contradictions, the trip featured symbolic gestures that distracted from serious diplomacy. President Xi Jinping presented Starmer with a copper horse statue commemorating the Chinese zodiac year, while Chinese premiers gifted him a flute acknowledging his youthful musical pursuits. The prime minister also received a Labubu doll for his teenage children.
The Core Problem: Domestic Performance
The "Never Here Keir" criticism persists not because of his travel schedule, but due to perceived failures in domestic governance. Voters dissatisfied with his record on the cost of living, NHS performance, and immigration policy naturally question whether international trips represent misplaced priorities.
Starmer inadvertently reinforced this perception last year when explaining delayed response to £5 billion disability cuts by citing his focus on "Nato and the Middle East" during a two-day summit. The "dog ate my homework" quality of this excuse drew widespread mockery and highlighted that being abroad wasn't the issue—failing to anticipate parliamentary opposition was.
Diplomatic Successes Overshadowed
Ironically, Starmer has earned praise for other foreign policy achievements, including pragmatic handling of relations with Donald Trump and strengthening international support for Ukraine. These successes demonstrate that public opinion generally supports engagement with foreign leaders, even controversial ones, when perceived as advancing national interests.
As Rentoul notes, if domestic policy were effective and the country felt it was moving in the right direction, critics like Kemi Badenoch would struggle to make political capital from questioning a China visit. Most citizens recognize that prime ministers must negotiate trade deals, lead export missions, and promote national interests abroad—however incremental some benefits may be.
The Real Complaint Behind the Criticism
When newspapers ask "Is That It?" about diplomatic achievements or complain about time spent overseas, they're fundamentally expressing dissatisfaction with domestic governance. The issue isn't travel frequency but policy effectiveness.
Critics don't genuinely want Starmer to spend more time in Britain—they want better decisions or alternative leadership. Until domestic performance improves, international diplomacy will continue to be viewed through the lens of home-front failures rather than appreciated as essential statecraft.
