Keir Starmer’s final appearance at Prime Minister’s Questions revealed both a subdued tone and a sense of unfulfilled potential, marking the end of a tenure that many now view as a missed opportunity. Throughout his time in office, Starmer’s leadership was characterized by a cautious and measured approach, which critics argue left the country without the decisive direction it required.

During the session, Conservative MP Kemi Badenoch struck a notably restrained tone, acknowledging the Prime Minister’s departure with a mix of formal courtesy and underlying criticism. While initially adopting a composed demeanor, Badenoch eventually reverted to pointed remarks, accusing Starmer of neglecting his party’s internal challenges and exposing what she described as a disconnect between his leadership and the realities within Parliament.

Starmer’s responses to questions largely focused on a rehearsed summary of government achievements, highlighting efforts in areas such as Net Zero policies, housebuilding initiatives, and child poverty reduction. His administration also widened fiscal rules to enable investment, actions that some economists credit with tempering inflation before the onset of the crisis related to Iran.

Foreign affairs, however, stood out as the most significant domain of Starmer’s legacy. Amid a shifting global order and the perceived retreat of U.S. leadership, he worked to maintain support for Ukraine and uphold the Western rules-based international system. Collaborating closely with French President Emmanuel Macron, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Starmer sought to establish a “Coalition of the Willing.” This informal network aimed to fill gaps in global leadership caused by what critics have denounced as growing American demagoguery and inward focus. On Tuesday, Macron awarded Starmer France’s highest honor, the Legion d’honneur, acknowledging his diplomatic efforts.

Despite these strides, many commentators characterize Starmer’s premiership as marked by a failure to deliver comprehensive change domestically. His leadership style—neither inspiring as a charismatic figure nor effective as a technocrat—has been cited as leaving him isolated between communication breakdowns and policy shortcomings. Critics contend that Starmer showed limited engagement with the substantive demands of governance and was preoccupied with short-term electoral strategy over long-term reform.

This critique is encapsulated starkly in Starmer’s final policy announcement: a proposal for a social media curfew intended to improve teenagers’ sleep. Observers regarded the measure as emblematic of his administration’s tendency toward cautious, underwhelming responses in the face of complex societal issues such as online radicalization and extremist mobilization.

Starmer assumed office with a historic parliamentary majority during a time when many believed the country faced critical crossroads, including contending with rising populism and political fragmentation. Yet, as his tenure closes, assessments widely highlight an inability to capitalize on this mandate, with the absence of substantial progress casting a shadow over his legacy. The restrained decorum displayed in his last Commons session belied a broader narrative of unrealized potential and political disappointment.