Starmer: a Machiavellian example of what princes should not do

I enjoy using historical lenses to make sense of the modern world.

Looking at the current news regarding Keir Starmer in this year 2026, I have come to a disappointing conclusion: we are witnessing a classic Machiavellian tragedy.

For those of you who are new here, it’s worth a quick reminder of who Niccolò Machiavelli was. He was a Florentine diplomat and philosopher who, in 1513, wrote his most famous work, The Prince. In it, he described, with brutal honesty, what makes a leader successful and what causes them to fall. He didn't write about how things "should" be, but how they actually are.

Machiavelli’s main argument was that leaders must decide whether to be loved or feared. However, he warned that under no circumstances should a leader allow themselves to be hated or despised.

According to Machiavelli, a "hated" leader is one who seizes the property or the families of his citizens. We can rule this out for Starmer, he is not that kind of tyrant. However, when we look at Machiavelli’s definition of being "despised," the comparison becomes uncomfortably accurate. In Machiavelli's view, a leader becomes despicable if they are seen as fickle, superficial, weak, timid, or indecisive.

Let’s look at these five traits and see how they apply to Starmer today.

1. Fickle (Voluble)

This is the leader who says "A" today and "B" tomorrow without a clear strategy, driven only by the pressure of the moment. Machiavelli explains that this is ruinous because no one can plan for the long term with you. Allies won't trust your word, and enemies know they just have to wait for you to change your mind. Starmer’s history of "U-turns", from his campaign promises to the 2025 budgets, has been his greatest weakness. His word has lost its value as political currency.

2. Superficial (Light)

This refers to a leader who ignores serious issues or gets distracted by trivial matters and optics. It destroys authority because citizens feel the country is steered by someone who doesn't grasp the gravity of the situation. On this point, Starmer is safe. He isn't frivolous. His background as a prosecutor gives him the image of a serious, technical man. He isn't seen as someone who ignores the state's problems, but rather as someone who seems to be drowning in them.

3. Weak (Effeminate)

In Machiavelli’s 16th-century language, this term didn't refer to sexual orientation, but to a lack of "political backbone" or virtù. It meant being a "soft" leader who avoids conflict at all costs or lets circumstances control them. In a world of wolves, appearing soft is an invitation to be devoured. Machiavelli would see Starmer’s extreme caution, his fear of offending markets or swing voters, as a lack of strength. His inability to take firm command during current crises makes him look vulnerable to those who aren't afraid to be forceful.

4. Timid (Pusillanimous)

This is the leader who is afraid to take risks and lacks the "greatness of spirit" needed for big projects. People don't follow a leader who lacks courage; such a leader inspires no one, and their own soldiers will abandon them at the first sign of trouble. While Machiavelli looked for "grandezza" (grandeur), Starmer prefers a "safety first" strategy. By avoiding ambitious national projects and opting for low-profile damage control, he projects the image of a small-minded leader who is more afraid of failing than he is hungry for a big win.

5. Indecisive (Irresolute)

This is the leader who freezes when faced with a problem, doubting forever and letting issues rot. For Machiavelli, this is fatal. He argued it is better to make a wrong decision with firmness than to make no decision at all. Indecision creates a power vacuum that others will quickly fill. This is Starmer’s most dangerous trait. His tendency to wait for crises to "mature" before acting (as seen in his handling of the NHS and energy reforms) is exactly what Machiavelli described as the direct path to being despised by both the people and the powerful.

Conclusion

The lesson from this old framework for any aspiring leader is that you can govern without being loved, and you can survive by being feared. But when a leader becomes irrelevant due to indecision and a lack of firmness, the resulting contempt eventually consumes their authority.

According to Machiavelli, Starmer has avoided being hated, but by trying to please everyone and deciding on nothing, he has ended up as a leader that no one takes seriously anymore.