Why is Keir Starmer so disliked (before the Mandelson scandal?)

How can we possibly not have a General Election if Angela Rayner is made PM, when she repeatedly said there has to be a General Election if the PM is replaced mid parliament?

Quite possibly, but actions speak louder than words. Without substance and a workable plan to back it up, a silver tongue won't balance the books or create the long term growth and security the UK needs.

Yes, yes, all very well. But Starmer’s still a terrible speaker.

I should have added the way he speaks to my original comment. I have had my fill of the convincing and influential.

In my view, persuasive speaking and political influence are no substitute for substance and delivery. Substance and delivery is where the UK has a fundamental problem. We don’t need more performance politics - we need strong, workable ideas, genuine substance, and a leader with a competent team capable of delivering them. Without those, we’re left with the usual noise, strawmen, the politics of envy, and increasing systemic failure as growth limps to a stop. Infrastructure is sold off, inflation is imported, and an ever increasing burden falls on the shrinking middle.

I don’t see how replacing Keir with a more convincing orator improves any of this. What we have is a short-sighted backbench pulling the strings to drive policy changes and U-turns that actively weaken both the country and its credibility. Whoever they decide is 'influential' will still be steering a ship committed to underinvestment, outsourcing decision-making to private companies/ shareholders/ investors whilst elevating the morally bankrupt. The outcome will be the same: weaker infrastructure, poorer health outcomes, reduced social mobility and as usual with blame still aimed at the middle (dressed up as the rich), while those with the greatest wealth continue to contribute the least.

Thank you! That is a nice compliment. 😊

I am neither a barrister nor a solicitor advocate. My practice is non contentious, in a pretty technical area. But as I’ve mentioned, I have a parallel qualification in voice, which enables me to identify immediately the issues with the way someone speaks.

Lawyers do tend to be all “up in their heads” and working on the voice is fundamentally a physical, rather than an intellectual endeavour. They are also usually used to doing well academically and being the “clever” ones: when they receive constructive feedback, they are immediately inclined to challenge it, rather than to consider whether there’s anything valid in there. They are also shocking managers and leaders because they are emotionally unintelligent.

Finally - they tend to advise a client, to allow that client to make a decision, rather than take the decision themselves. They are risk averse and perhaps more reluctant to accept accountability for that reason.

As well as the presentation issues, I’ll wager all these play into Starmer’s discomfort in his current role.

Johnson was thin skinned, Truss was thin skinned. Sunak was thin skinned. Starmer really isn't.

Yes he gets angry quickly and rattled.

Starmer's accent is North East Surrey, a couple of miles from the Kent border. I grew up about 10 minutes away. It is absolutely typical.

He’s very thin skinned. It’s obvious when he’s interviewed, and at PMQs

On Friday he did just that

That's just so dangerous. Shows very poor judgement. Much like Thatcher and Saville did.

👏

Are you a barrister or solicitor advocate lawyer?

I haven’t read a better summary of why it matters how (any form of) a persuader speaks.

Most of that is libellous

I don't think he's at all easily rattled. Most senior politicians have very thin skins, he is not one of them.

Nobody has judged him on his accent on this thread: this poster just leapt on the (very valid) comments about his voice and assumed (wrongly) that people meant his accent.

Ultimately, he SOUNDS unsure and lacking in conviction. And, lo and behold, he IS unsure and lacking conviction, as his dreadful record and all the U-turns since Labour have been in power show.

The fact is that a significant part of leading right at the top is being a convincing and influential speaker. He’s unpopular because of what he’s done and because people don’t feel they can really relate to him because of the way he presents.

I cannot fathom how he was a successful advocate, if he spoke in court the way he now speaks publicly.

No. The public voted for their local MP. We never vote for a leader of a whole nation, as it's not a Presidential system.
Sir Keir was the leader of the party with the most seats. That's how it worked with the previous Conservative Government and their eventual number of PMs. That's how it will work if Sir Keir is chucked out by his own party. It's very simple.

I think, as a person, he's probably a decent bloke. He's clearly a very capable lawyer. But he's not a politician and he doesn't really understand how politics works. Plus, his policies are incredibly damaging, especially to the economy..... destroying farming and small businesses, and failing to get a grip on the excesses of the benefits system. Worse, he doesn't even have any conviction that his own policies are right - us it 13 or 14 U-turns so far?
To be fair, I never wanted or voted for a Labour Government. I never voted for Labour in the Blair years either, but at least I could see that Sir Tony was an extremely competent politician. Sadly, Sir Keir is just out of his depth.

Starmer/Labour barely got any more votes than COrbyn got the time before. He only got a landslide win because the Tory vote collapsed due to the useless Sunak.

Considering all the howls of protest about Brexit happening with only slightly more than half the vote, those same people claiming Labour got a whopping majority with just a third of the vote are not a full shilling!

2/3rds of the voters didn't vote for Labour, so there's more of a reason for anothe GE than there was for a second vote for Brexit!!

I have no time for people who judge on accent or class nor rats trying to jump off a sinking shit. Character and behaviour matter much more.

I was feeling some sympathy for him bc the Epstein thing has brought more pressure to beat him than on that awful Farage… but then I saw that DDN video with Matt Kennard pointing out Starmer's long-entrenched habit of lying and u-turning.

And now I think he’s lying through his teeth again when he says he didn’t know; and his apparent moral self-flagellation now see seems a bit sickening. He’s not furious at all, he knew all along.

Funnily enough, I didn’t like him before that bc he was so shit at Twitter. Bore the hallmarks of that stupid conspiracy circulating that he’s an MI5 pick.

Also, he once recounted a political anecdote about a trip to Scotland. He got the Glaswegian idiom so far wrong, it was obviously fabricated.

He’s an ennobled Labour Party member, a dishonest lawyer, a leader who can’t lead, and a breaker of promises.

You can disagree all you like: you’re still wrong. What’s happened on this thread is that PPs have said they don’t like his voice, he lacks gravitas and conviction sounds like Zippy etc. You have projected onto that that they were talking about his accent (tho no PPs actually mentioned his accent). I joined the thread to try to explain in more specific, technical terms what I thought the PPs had meant by the issues with his voice. You continued to insist they were judging KS on his accent although they were not.

Accent is indeed one feature of the voice: but nobody apart from you has focussed on that aspect of Kier Starmer’s voice. I couldn’t give a fuck about any PM’s accent as long as they are understandable. I am rightly pointing out that the technical deficiencies with the way he speaks (resonance, range, probably lack of support) make him sound directionless, lacking in courage of his convictions or any passion in any policy he’s supposed to be trying to effect. PPs have argued these matters are superficial and we should all be worried about the substance of what he does.

a) The OP asked why he’s so disliked: these aspects of his voice and how they affect how he presents affect his popularity in the polls - like it or not, it’s a reality.
b) the substance of what he’s done has also been poor.

He just isn’t a leader. He’s a lawyer. The two are often very different and use opposing skill sets. Trust me, as well as being a voice coach I’m also a lawyer and lawyers look at what the rules say when deciding, rather than thinking about what’s right or how the ordinary person might feel about it.

I understand your point but I don't agree with you. An accent is a characteristic of his speech as well as the other aspects, he is being judged on how he speaks overall, people aren't being discerning about this except you as it is your bread and butter! Major also from Surrey had the problem of people mocking the way he speaks, in fact they do have similar accents so it kind of proves the point.

He was from Worcester Park (Surrey) so again that was snobbery, I don't know why you think that is an argument in your favour.

The poshness of Boris worked in his favour, people tolerated bumbling, bloviating Boris as they imagined him like Mr Toad of Toad Hall, some found his antics endearing.

Nobody’s criticising Starmer’s accent. I’m pointing out that he’s a terrible speaker.

But of course that’s a minor thing in comparison to his complete lack of talent, terrible judgement and general bungling.

He’s fucking up the country at speed. And he’s doing it with a voice like Zippy from Rainbow.

Except they’re not. Pp have been clear. Only one poster has misunderstood @Piglet89and others posts.