AIBU to think the Prime Minister cannot stay in post?

Why?

Especially when you get constant abuse on top.

The cost of living is an issue everywhere and it's going to get worse if crops can't grow due to lack of fertiliser.

Some people need to give themselves a slap.

Stable? Starmer was the essence of stable. Now what? Hate the way parties turn on their own. No leader is going to make things suddenly better, reduce cost of living, manage the Trump problem, be a better head of state in Europe than Starmer. Out of the frying pan and into the fire.

He's not up to the job.

The Labour Party is fiddling while Rome burns. People across the political spectrum want stable, sensible government not constant drama. This behaviour adds to uncertainty, destabilises the markets and makes people feel even more insecure.

Well better the devil you know than the devil you do not is the case here. Do we really want one of the other one’s on offer?

Agreed. I think the following which didn’t get much attention, was much worse ethically -

The Owen Paterson scandal (UK, 2021):

MP Owen Paterson was found to have repeatedly lobbied ministers and officials on behalf of two companies that were paying him—breaking parliamentary rules on paid advocacy.

An independent watchdog recommended a 30-day suspension. The government (led by Boris Johnson) initially tried to block the punishment by changing the rules, sparking backlash over standards in public life.

After public and political pressure, the plan was dropped, and Paterson resigned as an MP soon after.

The case raised major concerns about lobbying, ethics, and accountability in UK politics.

It’s not good but I can’t get too het up about who was appointed to go to some dinner parties in Washington.

pfft Lotus, I was serious and on point. Starmer had no qualms throwing Sir Olly Robinson under the bus - human shields & blame games are rife in this govt.

Tbf, the Guardian has now adopted PoMo gender ideology wholesale which leans very heavily into 1950s conservative right-wing sex stereotypes, with even a bit of 1930s German anti-gay sex stereotyping thrown in.
Remind me again, which political party introduced the Gender Recognition Act?

TL;DR The Guardian is nuts.
One could say the Labour Party is nuts, too. They have trouble differentiating between nuts and other bits of human reproductive anatomy, and which biological sex has which.

Tbf, the Guardian has now adopted PoMo gender ideology wholesale which leans very heavily into 1950s conservative right-wing sex stereotypes, with even a bit of 1930s German anti-gay sex stereotyping thrown in.

Even its main sports writer has been at it.

It’s why Hadley Freeman et al left.

TL;DR The Guardian is nuts.

That famously right wing Guardian as well?

It’s only a big issue because the right wing media are out to get him. Boris lied all the time and managed to brush it off.

If there is a demand for a left-wing press, why isn't the Morning Star mainstream?

The Guardian hasn’t been left wing for some time and I think the Mirror’s borderline. The Morning Star is hardly mainstream.

The Guardian, the Daily Mirror, the Morning Star. Etc.

What left wing press?

Why should the right-wing press be nice to Starmer? They're the right-wing press, they're supposed to be on his back. Just like the left-wing press will always be on the back of of any Tory PM.

No one’s been hounding them.

its all been unforced errors.

Not at all, but there is a difference between legitimate criticism and the kind of hounding this government have had from day 1.
That could have been because he positioned himself as better than the rest. Whereas it turns out that he isn't.
The hounding has been because of (a) poor decisions from Day 1 and/or (b) the number of U-turns as they undo those decisions.
He has no backbone.

Right. So Boris Johnson set an extraordinarily low bar for the role of PM. Starmer is miles away from anything like "pro-rogueing parliament under false pretences". In a world of Donald Trump running America, the standards we seem to be applying to our own PM seem ludicrous to me. One rule for the right wing (who can be completely shameless criminals), one for the left wing (who have to be god-like perfect humans).

What I struggle to understand is why people are so easily influenced by foreign owned media that clearly have a vested interest in disruption.

Leave the guy be. The constant calls for him to go are getting repetitive and just a hate campaign. Most of it has been baseless. It feels like "Keir Starmer sneezed this morning, prompting calls for him to resign"

Not at all, but there is a difference between legitimate criticism and the kind of hounding this government have had from day 1. Starmer has handled this badly, Mandelson shouldn't have been considered for the US ambassador post, but the right wing press and much of Mumsnet have never given Starmer and this government a chance.

I don’t know who the ‘howling hordes’ are but if his successor makes the same mistakes then they will be asked to resign as well.

Or do you think the PM should be above criticism?

So Starmer resigns and someone else steps up. And then the howling hordes will just bay for the successors blood. This is all about some people refusing to accept that it is legitimate to have a government that isn't of the right.

Keir Starmer is a weak man, and all of his problems stem from this.