The question “Who is Keir Starmer?” echoed across headlines before and after he took office in 2024. Despite leading the Labour party for years, his personality, leadership style and core motivations remained something of a mystery. Now in office, that question matters more than ever. In moments of crisis, a national leader’s psychology plays a decisive role.
The UK faces a difficult foreign policy landscape. Post-Brexit Britain is still rebuilding alliances amid economic strain and Donald Trump’s return to the US presidency has put a more transactional, Russia-friendly approach in the White House. The UK’s balancing act has become even more precarious. Starmer must back Ukraine, strengthen ties with the EU and manage an unpredictable relationship with Trump. For any leader, it’s a high-stakes task.
Traditional international relations theories often treat states as rational actors, with little attention paid to who is making the decisions. In this view, leaders are interchangeable; internal traits are “black-boxed” and considered irrelevant.
But political psychology challenges this. Leaders are not all the same. How they perceive and respond to constraints – be they economic, institutional or geopolitical – varies dramatically.
Faced with similar conditions, different leaders make different choices. Their decisions are shaped by traits, motivations, emotions and deeply held beliefs.
Starmer: psychologically different to other PMs
Political psychology provides tools for assessing leaders by analysing their public statements. Since traditional psychological assessments are rarely feasible, researchers rely on at-a-distance methods, based on the premise that the way leaders speak and the language they use can reveal underlying traits, motivations and beliefs.
One of the most widely used approaches is leadership trait analysis (LTA), developed by psychologist Margaret Hermann. It employs computational content analysis to systematically code language and produce comparable personality profiles.
To reduce the influence of speechwriters, the analysis focuses on spontaneous material such as interviews and press conferences. The framework identifies seven core traits that are particularly relevant to foreign policy decision-making.
Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.
Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.
Applying this framework to Starmer’s public appearances since taking office reveals notable differences between his profile and that of the average UK prime minister.
Of the seven core traits measured by the framework, Starmer scores within the typical range on task orientation, in-group bias, self-confidence, and conceptual complexity. But he stands out in three areas: distrust, belief in his ability to control events, and need for power. In these, he scores significantly above average.
These traits suggest a leader who is confident in his influence, driven to shape outcomes, and inclined to assert control when faced with obstacles. Leaders high in belief in their ability to control events tend to be ahead of the game and view challenges as manageable. When paired with a high need for power, this reflects a strong drive to steer the political environment, often through strategic manoeuvring and behind-the-scenes influence.
These leaders test boundaries and thrive in direct, high-stakes negotiations. This combination has been seen in figures like Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair.
Compared with his most recent predecessors – Rishi Sunak, Liz Truss and Boris Johnson – Starmer shares certain traits but also diverges in meaningful ways. Like Johnson and Sunak, he shows a strong belief in his ability to control political events and a high need for power.
However, what sets him apart most clearly is his elevated level of distrust, which surpasses even Sunak’s. Research links this trait to risk-prone, uncooperative leadership styles.
Distrustful leaders often view others as potential threats, are less inclined to compromise, and fall back on control rather than collaboration. It’s a hallmark of hawkish leadership and has been associated with costly policy errors, such as George W. Bush’s misjudgement of Iraq’s weapons capabilities.
At the same time, Starmer differs from Johnson and Sunak in his greater cognitive complexity. He sees nuance, tolerates ambiguity and avoids black-and-white thinking.
He appears more open to new information and more flexible in adapting his approach. While Johnson and Sunak were more people-focused and scored low on task orientation, Starmer brings a balanced leadership style, combining interpersonal awareness with a clear focus on results. He can build relationships while staying goal-driven – an essential combination in today’s global landscape.
Starmer and Trump
What does this suggest about Starmer’s potential relationship with Trump? While research on leader-to-leader dynamics is still developing, Trump’s leadership profile is well-established.
He scores high in self-confidence, low in task orientation, places a strong emphasis on loyalty and shows high levels of distrust. His self-confidence means he rarely seeks disconfirming information, often filtering reality to fit his beliefs.
His low task focus reflects a preference for group loyalty over detailed policy. Combined with a deep suspicion of others, this results in a transactional, uncompromising leadership style centred on personal allegiance.
This presents challenges for Starmer, whose high distrust and tendency to defy constraints could complicate efforts to build mutual understanding. Yet his adaptability, pragmatism, and balanced focus on people and tasks, combined with confidence in his ability to shape outcomes, may help him navigate this volatile relationship.
His assertive style, however, could still surprise or alienate some supporters as he makes bold moves beyond expectations.
Starmer’s leadership may lack the charisma or flair of his predecessors, but his personality profile reveals a distinct and consequential approach to power. Confident, strategic and distrustful, he is not a passive figurehead but a leader likely to assert control, challenge limits and drive his vision.
When the stakes are this high, Starmer’s psychology may not just influence Britain’s path – it could determine it.
Democracy in decline? The risk and rise of authoritarianism
Democracy is under pressure around the world in 2025. But is this part of a larger historical cycle or does it signal a deeper, more fundamental shift? Join us for a free event in central London on May 8 to discuss these important questions. Come for a panel discussion and stay for food, drinks and conversation.
Get tickets here
Consuelo Thiers does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
